Former conscripted laborers asking South Korean government to exercise diplomatic protection rights - will the new administration reveal the core of the issue?

2022-07-06 Category:Forced to work problem

Photo by Remi Cormier (licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.

[Table of contents]

Ask the government to invoke diplomatic protection
What is the basis for finding a tort?
The most important and ambiguous part
This decision decides everything
Japan will not solve Korean domestic problems

Ask the government to invoke diplomatic protection

On the 4th, the plaintiffs announced on the 4th that they would request that the South Korean government invoke its "diplomatic protection rights" . This can be said to be the core part in a sense. The original point of contention is whether the issue is within the scope of the 1965 Japan-Korea Claims Agreement, under which both countries waived their diplomatic protection rights, or whether it is outside the scope.

Waiver of diplomatic protection means that the plaintiff's government does not provide diplomatic protection when an individual or group files a lawsuit against a conflicting country. In other words, the country is not touched.

What is the basis for finding a tort?

The rationale that the Korean Supreme Court (Supreme Court) stated in its judgment in the 2018 forced labor trial that it was outside the scope was the colonial tort theory that Japanese rule itself was an illegal act (such international law did not exist at the time). It also includes the fact that the requisition itself is an illegal act by the state (the question of whether it is forced labor or forced to work), an issue that remains unresolved depending on the claims agreement. But this conclusion has already been reached.

When Gunkanjima was registered as a UNESCO heritage site, the Korean side had already acknowledged that it was ``forced to work'' as a legal conscription under the Forced Labor Convention, 1930.

Read it together

Korea is opposed to Sado Kanayama's application for registration as a World Heritage site.Japan have evidence that it was not forced labor. The Cabinet's decision in April 2021 and the inclusion of warship islands as UNESCO World Heritage sites are posted on the grounds that the recruitment at that time was not a forced labor.Forced Labour Convention in 1930. When registering as a warship island, South Korea strongly opposes it, and Japan has even proposed a draft of the plan, saying that it will support it if it writes forcedlabor.Japan refused, and at the Japan-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting, South Korea finally agreed to write forcedtowork.The Korean side was particular about the description because it knew that forced labor would be described as forced labor in the Forced Labor Convention at that time.Recruitment is not included in forced labor.It is stated in Article 2-2.The recruitment of the General Mobilization Order falls under paragraph (b). South Korea opposes Japan's move to apply for the registration of Sado Kanayama as a World Heritage Site, saying it will not allow forced labor to be designated as a World Heritage Site.This is just the same view as it was on Gunkanjima. C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) ARTICLE 1 1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period. ARTICLE 2 1. For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily. 2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include-- (a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character; (b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country; (c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations; (d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population; (e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.

Read on>

The most important and ambiguous part

This is the major premise, the core, and the weakest part of the judgment issued by the Supreme Court regarding the forced labor judgment. The Supreme Court hardly explained the most important part of the judgment it handed down, and did not provide any basis. The judgment was made citing the premise of the law.

South Korea seems to be overjoyed over the sentencing of a 101-year-old man to five years in prison in Germany.

Everything is determined by this decision

The determination of whether or not it falls within the scope of diplomatic protection will indicate everything about conscripted labor. In the Hyun Moo-hyun administration, the South Korean government compensated for the forced labor issue as an issue within the scope of the 1965 agreement. The Korean government's position on this issue has already been released.

Read it together

postwar compensation and Roh Moo - hyunJapan is waiting for the old people to die.They say it's time-buying, but it's the other way around.So far, the Korean government has compensated the people several times after the war.Moon Jae In is the one who is trying to buy time just because the current government is fleeing.At the time of 2005, Japanese Military Sexual Slavery was not included, but Japan said it would not recognize government-led coercion, and it goes without saying that the 2015 Japanese Military Sexual Slavery agreement was comprehensive. ----- In February 2004, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, demanding that five of the 57 documents related to the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement be released.The trial began in September 2002 when a group of bereaved families of Japanese victims of forced mobilization demanded that the government confirm the details of the Korea-Japan agreement. As a result, Japan's compensation issue, which was temporarily settled after the signing of the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement in 1965, and compensation in the 1970s, has resurfaced.It's a kind of second round. At that time, the government appealed on the grounds of its impact on bilateral relations.However, in August 2004, former President Roh Moo Hyun abandoned the appeal after consulting with Cheong Wa Dae, the chief civil society office, and the National Security Council (NSC) at a meeting of senior aides. After the release of the claim agreement in January 2005, public opinion began that the amount of compensation paid by the government in 1975 was very small compared to that received by Japan.From 1975 to 1977, the Park Chung-hee administration spent 90 percent of its 300 million dollars on economic development and only 10 percent on compensation.Only 8,552 of the estimated 1.03 million victims of forced mobilization benefited. Accordingly, the Roh Moo Hyun government has prepared follow-up measures.At that time, former President Roh Moo-hyun and Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan set four criteria: (1) support in other ways than legal compensation, (2) support through national compromise and consultation, and (4) support in parliament.To this end, the organization organized is the Public-Private Joint Committee.It consists of 21 people, including 10 private committee members, including Yang Samsung Law Firm Hwa-woo, Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan, and 11 government officials. On 26 August 2005, the Joint Committee on Civil and Government Affairs announced the results of the following discussions. (1) Anti-humanitarian illegal activities involving Japanese military forces such as Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, Sakhalin compatriots, and atomic bomb victims are not included in the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement. (2) The $300 million loan received from Japan reflects the South Korean government's claim to Japan, such as personal property rights (insurance, deposits, etc.), bonds with Japan, and funds related to the resolution of forced mobilization damage. (3) The South Korean government is morally responsible for using a considerable amount of free money received from Japan to help victims of forced mobilization (the South Korean government calculated $360 million in compensation for forced mobilization out of $1.22 billion requested from Japan in 1961). (4) While continuing to hold the Japanese government accountable for the issue of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, it will continue to raise the issue through international organizations. Source article: 中央日報

Read on>

Japan will not solve Korean domestic problems

No matter how much we discuss this, it is a domestic problem for South Korea, and it is a legislative, administrative, and judicial issue. It should be common sense to know that international treaties and agreements are not affected by a country's domestic issues. Is President Yun Seok-Yeol saying that Japan's strength is necessary to resolve domestic issues?